mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 1-5

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

The slur is present in the orchestral part sources, MFrorch and FEorch. Therefore, it may have been omitted by accident. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that legatiss. in FE (→GE,EE) was aimed at mitigating the absence of that slur – there is no place to add a slur in FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Legato & slurs

b. 16-17

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Slur d2-g2 in FE (→GE)

Slur f2-g2 in EE

Slur d2-b1 suggested by the editors
..

It is unclear from the notation of FE (→GE) to which notes the endings of the slur are supposed to be linked. When interpreted literally, the slur leads from d2 in the middle voice to g2 in the soprano cantilena. It is not impossible, particularly since the division into voices is not strictly written down here – Chopin separated the top voice only in the 2nd half of bar 16, where it was necessary due to the varied rhythmic values. However, taking into consideration a possibility of an inaccurate reproduction of the notation of [A], which would often occur in similar situations, the slur could be reasonably assigned to the top voice, as it was done in EE, or to the middle third sequence b1-d2 – a1-c2 – g1-b1, which we suggest in the main text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 17

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

No slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur in EE & GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest a whole-bar slur in the L.H. after the authentic slurs encompassing figures of a similar shape in bar 20 and 23-25. The addition was introduced also in EE and GE3. A similar situation in analogous bar 58.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 18-19

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Slur written into FED

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)
..

We interpret the quite ambiguous mark written in FED at the end of bar 18 as a slur. The necessity to combine the last quaver in bar 18 with the following minim is clearly indicated by the Chopinesque fingering and probably also by the mark written in FEH. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FEH

b. 18

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Slur to e1 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur to a1 in GE3
..

The slur of the majority of the editions, even if it renders the notation of [A] accurately, is probably inaccurate – embracing the entire passage in the L.H. with a slur seems to be much more natural. Due to that reason, we suggest a longer slur in the main text; an identical change was introduced in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions